IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

AT SHIMLA

Arbitration Case No.388 of 2025

Decided on: 29.12.2025

__________________________________________________________

Manjeet Singh and others

......Petitioners

Versus

The National Highway Authority of India

and others ....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for treporting?

For the petitioners: Mr. Praveen Kumar Bhatti,

Advocate.

For the reospondents: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate vice

Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate,

C for Respondent No.1-NHAI.

Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Deputy Advocate General, for Respondents

h No.2 and 3-State.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioners-Manjeet Singh; Nasima Devi;

Sanjeev Kumar; and Sudershan Devi, have come up before this Court in instant petition filed under Section 29-A (4) (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996, seeking following relief:-

“12(i) That the period from 13-08-2025 onwards

may kindly be regularized and the mandate of the arbitrator may kindly be

extended for a reasonable time.”

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Grievance of the petitioners is that the Central Government issued a NotificatPion under the National Highways Act for acquiring the land at Village Mahal Dangri, Post Office Dangri, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, was acquired, in terms of the Award No. 10o2 of 2022 dated 14.12.2022. 2(i) Feeling dissati sfied against the Award, the petitioners filed a rReference before Learned Arbitrator- cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi under Section 3G(5) to 7 of the National Highways Act vide Reference No.133 of 2023; In re: Manjeet Singh Versus LAC- cu m-S.D.O (C) Nadaun (Hamirpur). Perusal of the petition indicates that even after the completion of pleadings, Learned Arbitrator could not conclude the H proceedings within the prescribed period of 12 months.

Thereafter, with consent of the parties, the time for concluding the arbitral proceedings was extended.

2(ii). Perusal of the pleadings in the instant petition reveals that the petitioners invoked arbitration by filing petition on 10.11.2023. Accordingly, pleadings were completed. Respondents chose not to file any evidence in rebuttal. Even the written arguments were submitted by Petitioners’ Counsel and when the petitioners appeared before Divisional Commissioner, Mandi-cum-Arbitrator NHAI, Presiding Officer informed the Petitioners that the mandate has .been expired on 13.08.2025, however, no Award was pronounced. The present incumbent/Arbitrator had stated that the proceedings could not be completed as the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi-cum-Arbitrator NHAI, is enjoying the charge of more than one post and was overburdened with administrative work. Therefore, the parties were directed to approach the competent Court for extension of time so that arbitral could proceed hereinafter.

It is in this backdrop that the instant petition has been filed, assailing the orders dated H 19.09.2025 in case No.133 of 2023 passed by Learned Arbitrator with the prayer to direct the concerned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitral proceedings under Section 29-A (4) (5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

STAND OF RESPONDENT No.1 [NHAI] :

3. Upon listing of this case today, Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate appearing on behalf of Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1-

National Highway Authority of India, on Instructions, states that keeping in view the intent and object of the arbitral proceedings which have to be given a practical shape so that the rights of . the parties fructify by taking the proceedings to logical end coupled with the fact that in similar cases, the Arbitration proceedings originating from the same acquisition notice and the award have been concluded; therefore, she submits that in peculiar fact-situation of this case, no reply is intended to be filed to the present case.

4. Learned State Counsel states that since the contesting respondent is NHAI-Respondent No.1, therefore, no reply is intended to b